HHC TelangANA dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by defendants against an order vacating application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner because facts regarding private sales and donations could be proved by evidence. The petition was devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
..ii
132',t6 |
lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2663 OF 2023
Between:
...PET|TIONER.Nos.2 to 4; 12 to14.
AND
...RESPONDENTS.No.5 to 9 &1'1.
Petition under Article227 ofthe constitution of lndia,prayinglhat in the circumstances statedin the groundsfiled herein,the High court may b,e pleased to allow the Civit RevisionCetitionby setting aside the Order dated 121-6-2023, made in l.A.NO.187 of 2023,in O.S.No.72 of 2O14, on the Principal seniorcivil Judge, wanaparthy,dismissingthe petition filed by the Revision Petitioners herJin under Rule 26 Rule9 CPC, seekingto appoint an advocate commissioner to note down thePhysical featuresof the suit schedule property,whilt,' declaring that advocate commissionercan be appointedin the background of ther matter
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto stay of all furtherproceedings in o.s.No. 72 of 2O14,on the file of the Principal senior civil Judge,wanaparthyipending disposal of the Revision Petition
Counsel for thePetitioner(s):SRl. G ANANDAM
Counsel forthe Respondents:None Advocate Appeared
The Court made thefollowing: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE M. LAXMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2663 oF2023
ORDER:
r1
)
.,
part of land to minorities' graveyard. This can be proved by way of evidence, not by appointing the Advocate Commissioner. The same is the finding of the Court below. Thepteadings whatever arepteaded for appointment of Advocate Commissioner can be proved by way of leading evidence not by way of appointing Advocate Commissioner to gathering the evidence. Therefore, the petition is devoid of any merits and tiabte to be dismissed.
stand ctosed.
Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER.
To,
L The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy,
Aili}-m
-.
HIGH COURT
DATED:0810912023
ORDER
CRP.No.2663 of 2023
e s,'rATE
1
tl
J C
12 lltt 2[21
C)() tl
i I): ,. t:'a r"!\r'
-:--'-//
DISMISSED
%
b
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is appropriate to note physical features of suit property when the cause of action involves private sales and donations provable by evidence.
Mekala Sanjanna
Mekala Srinivasulu
Mekala Krishna Sagar
Sanjamma
Anasuyamma
Pedda Uppari Radha
M. Laxman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
